Elizabeth Noel, Esq.
Peopleís Counsel for the District of Columbia

Most delegates are aware of the virtually unique
efficient operation of the Office of the Peopleís Counsel during past
administrations of poor government in the District. Operating as a
public interest law firm, Ms. Noelís office represents rate payer
interests before the Public Service Commission (which regulates all D.C.
utilities), the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the D.C. Court of Appeals and the federal courts
ó a weighty portfolio if ever there was one.

At the same time, the OPC and Ms. Noel herself, have
been consistently available to associations and community leaders with
advice, information and, at times, heavyweight assistance. Ten years
ago, for instance, when associations fighting the issue of private
electric power plants in neighborhoods received short shrift at the then
Office of Planning, various boards and commissions, and the mayorís
office, OPC doors were open and attentive peopleís attorneys waiting.
The tide turned, the communities (and city welfare) prevailed, and the
Public Service Commission. proactively enacted timely regulations to
control future potentially disastrous proliferation of electric power
plants to be scattered throughout residential D.C.

On the broader front, Ms. Noelís vigorous representation of
consumer interests is credited with turning back the now abandoned PEPCO/BG&E.
(Baltimore Gas and Electric) merger, widely viewed as anticompetitive;
creation of the Telecommunications Trust Fund being used to wire schools
and public buildings to the Internet; and promoting quality of service
standards to protect consumers as we enter into a period of increasing
utility deregulation brought on by changes in federal laws.

Ms. Noel graduated from Thomas More College of
Fordham University with a B.A. in economics. She received her J.D.
degree from Georgetown University Law Center. With her extensive
experience in administrative law, public utility regulation, state and
federal regulatory and legislative issues involving telecommunications
and energy law, Ms. Noel is a sought-after speaker for professional
organizations, consumer and citizen organizations and the industry on
emerging issues.

Since 1987, Ms. Noel has served as a faculty member
of Michigan State University. In 1995 she joined the faculty of the D.C.
Barís Continuing Legal Education Committee, teaching D.C.
administrative law. Ms. Noel is a member of the D.C. Bar Association,
the Washington Bar Association, the National Bar Association and the
Womenís Bar Association. In addition, she serves on the Executive
Committee of .the National Association .of -State Utility Consumer
Advocates. It is no surprise then that Ms. Noel was a member of
President Clintonís 1992 Transition Team in the Natural Resources
Cluster advising on energy matter related to the Department of Energy
and the Federal Energy Commission.

On the civic front, Ms. Noel has served as secretary of the Parents
Association of the Holton Arms School in Potomac, Maryland, and serves
as co-chair of its Fine and Performing Arts Committee.

At the Federationís January assembly Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Director David Clark offered positive
encouragement to long-suffering communities with a plethora of illegal
rooming houses. Among information distributed and discussed at the
meeting was the DM announcement: "Small business or large Ö (sic)
earning more than $2,000 a year in gross receipts in D.C. means you MUST
have a Master Business License. Failure to get one could result in a
$500 fine. (Followed by contact data.)" A call to the pertinent
DCRA office brought out that the license fee is a mere $25. Whatís up?

According to Ms. Teresa Lewis, experienced DCRA
Executive Officer who accompanied Mr. Clark, the cost of the small
business licenses is secondary. Of primary importance is the fact that a
licensing requirement is now in place. This means an across-the-board
registration requirement, which means that the DCRA can finally tabulate
the far-flung and virtually unaccounted-for neighborhood-centered
rooming house industry. The new requirement, according to Ms. Lewis, is
an important first step in a meaningful regulatory process. It makes
sense. Whatís next?

Well, to begin with, once rooming-house businesses
are accounted for with DCRA, that department and the Corporation Counselís
office must get together and define the status of the numerous two- and
three-family dwellings now lurking in single-family zoned residential
districts. This is a besetting problem especially in communities that
surround universities. The general format of this business activity is
the dividing-up of single-family zoned houses ó usually small row
houses ó into two or three apartments, which are multifamily
dwellings.

To date, myriad community association and citizen
complaints of illegal subdividing and the resultant problems of
overcrowding and community impact have been bounced back and forth
between DCRA and the Corporation Counsel. DCRA claims it cannot enforce
an "unclear" law on basement and second-floor apartments in
small R-3 residentially zoned houses, and the Corporation Counselís
office ducks the issue with inattention. Meanwhile, the neighborhoods
suffer and the cancer spreads.

What to do? As a start, Ms. Lewis confirmed in answer
to a query, associations and individuals can compile a list of
commercial rooming houses in their neighborhoods and send these to Ms.
Lewis at the DCRA. This gets the properties into the regulatory system.
DCRA has gone far toward computerizing its operations now and previous
chaos and lack of regulable-housing information can be resolved. Once a
usable inventory of small rental businesses is in place, more meaningful
regulation such as inspections, taxability status and occupancy control
can be imposed.

This new DCRA sensitivity and attention to the
rooming house problem in residential communities is to be at once
applauded and closely monitored by associations and the Federation. It
is a good first step, and we can help the process along, but the bigger
problem remains to be addressed.

On March 1 the city council will consider PR 14-535, "Community
Corrections Facility Siting Advisory Commission James H. Jones
Appointment Resolution of 2002," to confirm the appointment. Among
other things, the commission deals with the number, concentration and
location of specialized houses in residential areas.

Sporting Life in the District: Thoughts
from the President ó Buck Clarke

It seems that life in Our Nationís Capital has gotten exceedingly
dull over the past few years. Many of us have been so busy trying to dig
the city out of a hole dug during the preceding three decades that weíve
forgotten just what it is that we need to lead productive, enriched
lives. What we need, residents are being told of late, is
"Sport," the bigger, the more corrupt, scandalous, and
disruptive the better. What we need are the 2012 Olympics, Grand Prix
auto racing, downtown baseball, and some professional heavyweight
assault and battery. Thatíll spice things up! Thatíll show kids and
hardworking adults that thereís more to life than otherwise exists in
our humdrum efforts to revitalize the District through industry and
productive effort.

Washington, D.C. has experienced a tremendous lift during the past
five years. The residential exodus which had occurred in the 70ís, 80ís
and 90ís had finally been stanched, largely as a result of a booming
national economy and changing perceptions of the potential for urban
living. New home buyers have flocked to our city, excited by the
prospect of living in a vibrant, clean, functioning beehive of activity.
With enough caring, contributing individuals and families, the city can
overcome the horrible conditions which had made it an international
laughingstock. Or so we thought. Clean up the government, clean up the
streets, provide service for payment. Geez, it can be rewarding to be
amid the hubbub and vibrancy of urban living. That was the compelling
vision. Oh, but that is simply not enough, we are now being told. We
need Sport!

The cityís economy has made great strides toward solvency. How
delightful the prospect that ink can be ordered in colors other than
red! Though we appear to be heading in the right direction, we can
hardly be confident that we are on firm ground. The public school system
remains horrible, and at this point comes with a fiscal deficit of
unknown magnitude. There have been reports that some city services are
greatly improved. Are things still on the way up? Itís hard to be
certain.

The greatest improvement in the city has in fact been in the general
attitude of those of us who live in the District. Through a pervasively
optimistic morale, a faith that things could improve, we have made them
improve. We have been able to will the city out of the morass in which
it was stuck. But this positive morale can be broken and reversed if it
were to become widely felt that the city believed that the city was
returning to its earlier ways. Faith can move mountains, but
occasionally we need to be given some reason to believe.

Professional sport as an engine of local economic development is a
discredited theory the time for which has passed. Professional sport as
the focus for the aspirations of our youth is a concept which is being
sorely tested in our time. That the city as a whole will benefit from
promoting and subsidizing these activities is a concept which brings
with it memories of much of the decay in the District of decades not
long gone. What kind of message are we trying to send? Sports as
panacea? Sure! Just good clean fun? You got it! How about legalizing dog
fighting while we're at it?.

The final figure is 70%, meaning that by August 2002
the George Washington University must house 70% of its undergraduate
students either within its campus boundaries or outside of the Foggy
Bottom/West End residential area. Further, by August 2006, 70% must live
on campus.

GWU Revives Court Case

However, on January 9, the university went back to
federal court and revived its "stayed and pending" complaint
about BZA provisions concerning its ten-year campus plan. The university
claims the order threatens its academic mission, studentsí rights and
the admissions process. The suit was filed against the city and the BZAís
defense counsel is the Corporation Counsel.

One issue for GWU is the orderís provision which
prevents the inclusion of off-campus Foggy Bottom student housing in the
70%, a ruling GWU says is illogical and unfair. Graduate students are
not considered in the BZA order.

The Board also established an enrollment "base
number" of 8000 undergraduates, making the university responsible
for housing 5600. Only by providing one bed per student over that number
could the university exceed the 8000 base. In addition, no approvals for
campus buildings which do not contain housing will be allowed if the
university fails to come into compliance with the BZA final order.

According to the order, GWU had enrolled 8044
undergraduates as of the 2001-2002 academic year, but had only 4108 beds
on campus. The Board also found that "students had effectively
turned apartment houses into dormitories and townhouses into fraternity
houses. Such large transient populations Ö undermine the residential
stability of the already fragile Foggy Bottom/ West End
neighborhoods."

OP Gave Strong Support

The "Final Order on Remand" for the GWU
campus plan was issued by the Board of Zoning Adjustment on December 21,
wrapping up two years of meetings, filings, testimony, and controversy.
Strong support from the D.C. Office of Planning ó which termed the
stability of residential Foggy Bottom "at the tipping point,"
as well as extensive testimony from local ANC-2A, the Foggy Bottom
Citizens Association and other residents, evidently convinced the BZA of
the need to control the universityís expansion into the Foggy Bottom/
West End neighborhood.

In the near term, by the fall of 2002 the university
must arrange for housing for 1000-1500 undergraduates outside Foggy
Bottom, since by the terms of the order the Foggy Bottom buildings used
by GWU ó including several university-acquired apartment houses, a
large former Howard Johnson Hotel and a portion of the vast Columbia
Plaza apartment complex ó cannot be counted toward the 70%. The Board
felt that, given GWUís testimony that "lack of money (for
dormitories) is not an issue," there should be "no major
impediment to the universityís acquisition of housing Ö outside
Foggy Bottom/West End by next fall." Campus boundaries were changed
slightly by the Board.

The 23-page BZA order reiterated findings of the
Board that university expansion is threatening the existence of Foggy
Bottom/West End as a viable, tax-producing residential neighborhood.
Many residents, while always hoping for more relief, applauded the
strength of the orderís language, and the giant steps it represents
for the area. These giant steps, of course, are threatened by the
universityís federal court complaint.

There are two aspects of the roiling surveillance
camera issue: traffic monitoring devices and broad-area cameras. Recent
headlines of "Vast Network of Cameras to Monitor Wide Areas of
D.C." and "Police Surveillance Scheme Raises ĎBig Brotherí
Alarms" point up the latter aspect. Calls for changes in the
traffic tracking cameras have been issued by council members Linda Cropp
and Jack Evans, and the mayor has called for less financial incentive to
the private contractor involved. City council and congressional hearings
will be held soon, and the new technology stands to be publicly aired
and likely regulated upfront.

Polar emblematic stances are forming up. D.C. Police
Charles Ramsey appears to be calling for trust in the police to
"operate within the law," ACLU director Johnny Barnes heads a
bloc wary that the new technology can be easily used to violate civil
rights, and D.C. House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and D.C.
councilmember Kathy Patterson are scheduling hearings. Emphasized at a
private briefing by Chief Ramsey of the ACLU, the Federation and several
other organizations was an ongoing project of police-prepared
"guidelines" for use of the possibly pervasive cameras. The
ACLU is in process of preparing its own proposed legislation. The city
government, via councilmember Pattersonís Judiciary Committee will
likely come up with regulatory legislation already being discussed. Also
likely is that the House District of Columbia Subcommittee chaired by
Congressmember Constance Morella will think and act along the same
lines.

The stakes are high. Basically, surveillance
technology has overtaken citizen privacy protection laws, and is
improving at a fast pace. It is now possible, in addition to scanning
moving vehicle licenses and the people within, to scan large areas,
buildings, and street scenes constantly and at will. Whose will? This is
undefined. The implications for privacy are basic, thus the awakening
awareness of the need for proactive, upfront regulation of the
technology use process. The scope for abuse in an undefined situation is
broad.

Added to the traffic side of the equation is that the
surveillance camera use process, however flawed, has become extremely
lucrative. Although some jurisdictions have jettisoned use of the
cameras, it seems unlikely that the District will do so. While D.C.
officials may call for easing and adjustment of the basic arrangement
that governs the apparatuses, public opinion is not sufficiently geared
up to address the issue effectively.

Next steps. On Monday; February 25, Federation
delegates will be testifying before the Patterson committee, to the
effect that (1) the new surveillance issue requires immediate and
in-depth attention, and (2) that upfront, proactive regulations of some
sort must be enacted. In addition, Federation first vice president Ann
Loikow heads a committee to arrange for a blue ribbon surveillance issue
panel forum for the March assembly. This is an issue that is upon us big
time. The Federation will address it constructively and head-on from the
community standpoint.

The Northwest Current reports that the Districtís surveillance
camera program has drawn a sharp rebuke from AAA Mid-Atlantic,
"which ranked the summertime introduction of -the cameras as among
the regionís worst transportation stories of 2001." The
organization noted that the speeding enforcement program aimed at
penalizing speeders "along the way ran over common sense."
Reportedly, the police department issued tickets at a pace of 300,000
tickets during the first five months of the program, "roughly one
for each licensed driver in D.C.," according to AAA.

Mr. A. L. Wheeler, immediate past First Vice
President of the Federation, received the Georgetown Business and
Professional Associationís Senior Advisory Council Lifetime
Achievement Award February 14. The high rolling lawyer, home rule
enabler and all-over-the-place constructive community activist has been
on the Washington scene for 55 years.

Mr. Wheelerís awesome curriculum vitae had to be
abbreviated at the 2001 Federation awards banquet, where he received the
Outstanding Achievement and Leadership Award, for reasons of sheer
volume of remarkable activity. The Georgetown recognition is the latest
in a long line of awards for disinterested public service.

Delegates who will participate in Federation-backed
city preparedness training courses for the District may want to get a
running start by hearing what is happening in neighboring jurisdictions.
On Wednesday, February 27 Mr. Lynn Frank, Chief of Public Health
Services for Montgomery County, Maryland will discuss the Montgomery
County response to post-September 11 Terrorism and Biological Warfare
Concerns, at the prestigious Georgetown Kiwanis Club. The luncheon
meeting will begin at 12:00 noon at the Savoy Suites Hotel, 2505
Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Everyone is invited.

D.C. Public Service Commission member Ed Meyers has
accepted a position as Director (there are several) with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. Nominations for a replacement for Mr.
Meyers are in, and a short list has been forwarded to the mayor by the
Office of Boards and Commissions.

The Public Service Commission regulates all utilities
in the District, and thus touches the lives of every citizen and
neighborhood. Commissioner Meyers (one of three) has been consistently
citizen-welfare minded throughout his tenure. A prime example of this
was his role in the cityís landmark defining and getting a regulatory
grip on the private electric power plant issue in the early 1990s. At
that time the District was threatened with the possibility of an influx
of large, polluting, dangerous private plants to be scattered throughout
the city, beginning in residential areas. The PSC proactively identified
27 most possible sites. Timely action by the Commission and enactment of
regulations governing future installation of private power plants
preserved the city from health and environmental problems and from
likely endless litigation and trouble.

Let us hope the mayor will name as a replacement for
Mr. Meyersí important position a duly responsible, pro-community
person. There are several contenders. By way of interesting detail, the
Public Service Commission is relatively insulated from budgetary
vagaries of the kind suffered by most other agencies in past decades,
since it may charge costs of its utility regulatory services to the
service-using utilities themselves, including the substantial costs of
research studies, expert advice and other outside consultant services.

Effective March 10, 2002, a new regulation will be on
the D.C. books governing the right of entry by government officials:
"Any duly designated agent of the District of Columbia may enter
the premises of a housing business for the purpose of enforcing this
subtitle, except as limited by Sec. 104.4." Sec. 104.4: "If a
tenant of a housing business refuses to give permission to inspect a
portion of the premises under the tenantís exclusive control, the
housing inspector shall not enter that Portion of the premises unless
the inspector has: (a) A valid administrative search warrant Ö (b) A
reasonable basis to believe that exigent circumstances require immediate
entry into that portion of the premises in order to prevent an imminent
danger to the public health or welfare.

"When a duly designated agent of the District of
Columbia presents a valid administrative search warrant that permits an
inspection or premises under a tenantís exclusive control, the tenant
of a housing business who refuses to give permission to inspect that
portion of the premises shall be in violation of this section.

"If a duly designated agent of the District of
Columbia presents a valid administrative that permits an inspection of
premises under a tenantís exclusive control, refusal to permit
inspection shall be cause for withholding the issuance of a housing
business license or revocation of any existing license, until :he
inspection is permitted." (DCMR 14; Chapter 1, Sec. 104)

A new section of law "clarifies the Councilís
intent that noise meter readings are not required to prove violations of
the act outside of the Central Employment Area." It reads:
"Sec. 2 Section 3(n) of :the District of Columbia Noise Control Act
of 1977, effective March 16, 1978 (DC Law 2-53; 20 DCMR Sec. 2799.1) is
amended Ö as follows: ĎIn making a determination of a noise
disturbance, the Mayor shall consider the location, time of day when the
noise is. occurring or will occur, and the duration of the noise. In
addition, the Mayor may consider the magnitude of the noise relative to
the maximum permissible noise levels permitted under this act, the
possible obstruction or interference with vehicular or pedestrian
traffic, the number of people that are or would be affected, and such
other factors as are reasonably related to the impact of, the noise on
the health, safety, welfare, peace, and quiet of the community."í

Inter alia, the new provision strengthens the ability
of police to control noisy parties, in residential communities, loud
music and general commotion on streets at night. It is a welcome move by
the city council.

The D.C. Register reports that legislative
introduction and referrals between January 7 and January 12 include Bill
14-483, "Jay Walking Fine Amendment Act of 2001. To amend Title 18
of the (DCMR) to increase the fine for walking against the Donít walk
or Wait signal from $10.00 to $25.00. Councilmember Schwartz, to the
Committee on Public Works and the Environment."

The Massachusetts Appeals Court dissolved an
injunction in late 2001 that halted a citizen recall of an official for
"lack of fitness, incompetence, neglect of duties and
misfeasance." The citizens petition did not allege more specific
grounds than those stated in the townís recall law. The official filed
against the recall vote, alleging that the recall vote was based on a
mere reiteration of statutory language, and not specific charges. The
upper court held that, "To the extent that the Legislature required
an affidavit of grounds, that requirement is more for the benefit of
providing notice of the general reasons for the recall to the voters,
not the elected official." (Mieczkowski v. Board of Registrars
of Hadley, No. 01-P-986, 10/4/2001). (As reported by the National
Law Journal, 11/11-19/2001).